Event Construction of Reality: Social and Political Opportunities

The article deals with the problems associated with the events and their role in the formation of the concept of reality. The issue of event-driven construction of reality requires a new ontological understanding in connection with the transition to the information society, in which most of the events that affect the concept sphere, is not casual, but human-made. During the formation of the post-industrial society, the event was not just an event, but a “special” event, an occasion for news. In the context of dynamically developing digital technologies, special events go beyond a convenient marketing tool and become unique elements of creating a range of new and hybrid realities, being in an interdisciplinary field. The purpose of the study is to consider the little-studied evolution of the event into a special event on the example of its role in the formation of the modern socio-political space. Also, there was a need to determine the role of events as a function of managing the generation of realities, functions able to overcome interdisciplinary barriers and link different levels of stratified social reality on the example of the study of the level of power. For the study, the author used the traditional methods of philosophical analysis and reflection, logical-dialectical analysis of the subject, the post-classical principle of complementarity of descriptions. As a result of consideration of the problem, it was possible to determine the main functions of special political events in the construction of socio-political reality, to determine their ability to integrate reality, divided by subcultural barriers. Special political events, as communication channels of a new type, can help to solve the crisis that has arisen as a result of the mutual isolation of the Humanities and Natural Sciences, can promote integration, joint institutionalisation and development in the information society.

1. Gerasimov S. V. Mass holidays as a factor in the development of the social partnership. Thesis for the degree of Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences. St. Petersburg: SPbGUKI; 2007. (In Russ.).

2. Gerasimov S. V. Mass holidays and social partnership. St. Petersburg: Aleteya; 2016. (In Russ.).

3. Tulchinsky G. L. Total Branding: The mythology of the post-informational society. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University; 2013. (In Russ.).

4. Malinova O. Yu. Symbolic politics: contours of the problem field. Symbolic politics. Issue. 1: Designing the notion of the past as an imperious resource. Moscow: INION RAS; 2012:24-33. (In Russ.).

5. Bergson H. The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Philosophical Library; 1946.

6. Whitehead A. N. Essays in Science and Philosophy. London: Philosophical Library; 1947.

7. Spinoza B. Works. In 2 vol. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: Science; 1999. (In Russ.).

8. Heidegger, M. Genesis and time. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 1997. (In Russ.).

9. Badiou A. Metapolitics: Can one think politics? A short treatise on metapolitics. Moscow: Logos; 2005. (In Russ.).

10. Lotman M. Yu. Structure of the artistic text. Moscow: Publishing house “Art”; 1970. 383 p. (In Russ.).

11. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, theology and history of St. Foma; 2006. (In Russ.).

12. Tulchinsky G. L. Explanation in political science: constructivism vs positivism. Public policy. 2017;(1):76-98. (In Russ.).

13. Smorgunov L. V. Eventive political knowledge and its significance for contemporary comparative political science. Policy. Political studies. 2011;(1):123. (In Russ.).

14. Nancy Zh. Being is the only plural. Minsk: Logvinov; 2004. (In Russ.).

15. Zolyan S. T. “Repeatability” of events in historical discourse: semantics and pragmatics. Representation of events. Integrative approach from the standpoint of cognitive sciences. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture; 2017:186-208. (In Russ.).

16. Sewell W., Jr. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.

17. Fyure F. The Comprehension of the French Revolution. St. Petersburg: Inapress; 1998. (In Russ.).

18. Markov B. V. The concept of political. Moscow: ROSSPEN; 2007. (In Russ.).

19. Aksenovsky D. I. The political event as a saving and limit of power: An experience of categorisation. Herald of the RSUH. 2008;(1):25-35. (In Russ.).

20. Filippov A. F. The space of political events. Policy. 2005;(2):6-25. (In Russ.).

21. Koopmans R., Statham P. Political Claims-Analysis: Integrating Protest Event and Political Discourse Approaches. Mobilisation: The International Journal of Research and Theory about Social Movements, Protest and Collective Behavior. 1999;4(2).

22. Ernst V., Hans F. Hannah Arendt and the Method of Political Thinking. Social Research. 1997;44(1):164.

23. Tresch A., Sciarini P., Varone F. The Relationship between Media and Political Agendas: Variations across Decision-Making Phases. West Eur. Polit. 2013; 36(5):897-918.

24. Gerasimov S. V. Some trends in human development. Philosophical sciences. 2015;(3):133-137. (In Russ.).

25. Hartmann N. Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie. Berlin: De Gruyter; 1935.

26. Rizzolatti G., Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2004;(27):169-192.

27. Carmody Tim. Without Jobs as CEO, Who speaks for the Arts at Apple? Wired, Aug. 29, 2011.

28. Garreau J. Radical evolution: The promise and peril of enhancing our minds, our bodies-and what it means to be human. New York: Broadway Books; 2005:11(20).

29. Habermas J. On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2001.

30. Van Dijk Т. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London; 1998.

31. McCloskey D. The Rhetoric of Economics. University of Wisconsin Press; 2000.

32. North D. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton University Press; 2005.

33. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. A. Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown Business; 2012.